Enter Half-Life Re-imagined, our current competition!
Check out Skewing textures in Hammer, our newest tutorial!
Say hello to Bear, our newest member!

logo

Site Stuff

Reference

Maps

Community

ShoutBOX

Poll

Valve Predictions 2017

What's the most likely thing Valve will release this year?

Nothing

18

A new game

3

More overpriced hardware

8

Source 2 SDK

11

An army of evil killer cyborgs

5

The hounds

8

Onliners

6 mins

NineTnine

6 mins

Dimbeak

15 mins

Jessie

45 mins

Ghost129er

1 hours

James Luke

1 hours

platoon

1 hours

Bruce

Affiliates

A gaming and technology blog by TWHL admins Penguinboy and Ant. A music blog by TWHL users Ant and Hugh.

Post your screenshots! WIP thread

<< ... 108 109 110 111 112 [113]

Forums > Maps and Mods

21 Mar 17, 08:51
By xawari
avatar
Member
Isn't it a little too late? VALVE/Sven team kind of lost the moment to open their sources because we now have:
- opensource Xash3D
- opensource ReHLDS
- unnamed opensource engine client implementation (not complete yet)
- opensource sp/mp/coop mod - XDM
- opensource tools
- alternative map editors

So, when (if) VALVe(r)(tm)(wtf)(gtfo) suddenly decides to open their crap, we won't be needing it anymore. grin - :D
21 Mar 17, 09:08
By Shepard62700FR
avatar
Member
Valve doesn't like Xash3D for various reasons and I don't like Xash3D too.
21 Mar 17, 10:20
By xawari
avatar
Member
I dislike VALVe and closed-source stuff a lot more.
Like it or not - Xash3D is currently the only working alternative to proprietary GS. And people working on its portability. You probably seen it working on ARM/Android.
21 Mar 17, 21:28
By abbadon
avatar
Member
Quote:
I don't like Xash3D too


I like it because it overrides most of the limits of GS engine. unhappy - :(

I did read a lot about Xash3D, and I am still wondering what did the Xash3D "steal" from Valve to make that company so angry. If we believe Valve, the HL code is 99% Quake source with less than 200 lines of new code, so, are those 200 lines of code what Xash3D team "steal"?. Well, I am simplifying it too much, sorry.

But, and this is other question, could the parts that are supposed to be "steal" code be developed through other ways apart of simply stealing the code?, is it proven that Xash3D guys did steal that code?. I am so confused, overall with the Quake part. I can not understad why an engine done with free software, as the Quake source is, is taken in a so low consideration if it´s done with code available for anyone who wants to put their hands on it.

Of course I understad that for many of you any kind of piracy-reverse engineering is like killing a dolphin with a spiked club or so, I don´t like this kind of things, don´t get me wrong, but I am not sure where to put Xash3D developers in that list of undesired persons.

Apart of this, there´s the fact that Valve don´t care a s***T about developers, and they don´t care about what they´re doing with GS (look how they ignore Solokiller´s E-Mails)... :/

I hope Solokiller release some day the PowerSource SDK along with the Powersource engine with VERY extended limits that will depend on actual hardware specs that are 100 times higher than in 1997.
21 Mar 17, 22:03
By Victor-933
avatar
Member
been working on an On A Rail inspired DM map for a few days (get outta my head @Snehk)



21 Mar 17, 22:08
By rufee
avatar
Sledge fanboy
HL code by far is not Quake code, yes its based on quake and quake2 a little, but is leaps and bounds ahead of what quake was at the time, with Valves additions to the code. Models with bones to name at least one thing.

If the code is not 1:1 what they supposedly stole it doesn't count as stealing. Unless there are patents involved, which serve to protect the idea and the realization technique behind it in this case code which as far as i am aware is not patented. And there are also licenses. Anyway code theft is kind of hard to investigate, because you can always claim to have stumbled upon a solution which just happens to be identically coded as Valves.

Piracy and reverse engineering are not the same, they go hand in hand because RE can be used to crack DRM games and such and that's why media makes it look like its a bad thing. Granted 80% of all licenses have a "No reverse engineering" clause which i believe also exists in Valves license.

Back when Valve were making the engine the quake engine was not free or open source and they bought (licensed) it from Id Software (makers of quake). And even to this day all the Id Software engines are free for non commercial use, meaning you can't make any money off selling a game with the engines code in it. That's why i believe Valve does not care about all the reverse engineering that's going on with the GS engine. All this interest in it just makes Valve more money in the long run.

Valve is a very closed company and its no surprise they don't reply to his or anyone else's e-mails for that matter. The fact that he did get a reply is sort of a miracle smile - :)

In the end you are here because you like working with this engine, i don't see you modding for Quake or any other open source even totally free engines so who's the real winner here ? (psst it's Valve smile - :) )
21 Mar 17, 22:29
By James Luke
avatar
Member
Quote:
...what did the Xash3D "steal" from Valve to make that company so angry.


IIRC, Xash3D and other sorts of projects that use it had code from the 2003 HL2 leak. Which is deemed illegal to use by Valve, and for good reason.

EDIT: Also, Xash IMO is lego-work that crumbles if you touch it, I appreciate the effort that the developers put in, I just don't like the end-result.
21 Mar 17, 22:32
By abbadon
avatar
Member
Yes!, at least with me Valve is winning!! grin - :D

But I never said that I don´t like GS, wink-wink - ;) I say that Valve policy about independant developers is not very clear or helpful, and in the case of Xash3D, unexplainabily harsh; afaik, Xash3D people is not earning money for its engine, or are they? unhappy - :( Maybe I must read more and investigate more. :/

Quote:
Also, Xash IMO is lego-work that crumbles if you touch it, I appreciate the effort that the developers put in, I just don't like the end-result.


It works fine, except for sprites, it does extrange things (bad colors or sizes, or sometimes they even show up), but I think UnkleMike is working on that, at least I hope so. wink-wink - ;)
22 Mar 17, 07:46
By rufee
avatar
Sledge fanboy
Quote:
I say that Valve policy about independant developers is not very clear or helpful


Factoring in everything, today it sounds like this: Do what you want as long as you don't make money off it.
22 Mar 17, 11:43
By abbadon
avatar
Member
I think that what´s the last thing in their priorities for people like Sookiller is to earn money with what they do with Gold Source. wink-wink - ;)
22 Mar 17, 15:17
By Solokiller
avatar
Member
Quote:

I did read a lot about Xash3D, and I am still wondering what did the Xash3D "steal" from Valve to make that company so angry. If we believe Valve, the HL code is 99% Quake source with less than 200 lines of new code, so, are those 200 lines of code what Xash3D team "steal"?. Well, I am simplifying it too much, sorry.


GoldSource is very different from Quake. The code that handles startup alone (up to the code that was in Quake: Host_Init: https://github.com/id-Software/Quake/blob/b
f4ac424ce754894ac8f1dae6a3981954bc9852d/W
inQuake/host.c#L835)
is more than 200 lines by itself. Things like studio models, the C/C++ interfaces (Quake uses an interpreted language called Quake C), detail textures, Steam integration, etc were all added by Valve. There's also the WON auth code (which surprisingly is easy to reverse engineer for a Windows DLL) is/was also unique to GoldSource.

It's very likely that at least part of Xash is based on leaked code. For instance, this function: https://github.com/FWGS/xash3d/blob/2ba1e30
d4cc571444bc2677c6cd7277cabb7c6af/engine/
client/s_vox.c#L235


The only reference to that function that i could find is from the Source engine leaks: https://github.com/LestaD/SourceEngine2007/
blob/43a5c90a5ada1e69ca044595383be67f40b3
3c61/se2007/engine/audio/private/vox.cpp#
L368


Strangely enough, i remember seeing something similar to this in Sven Co-op's code as well, so i guess it might have been released somewhere and subsequently lost.
Perhaps it's somewhere in the HLCoders mailing list, i can't be sure because there is no easy way to search through it and Google can't index it (afaik). That's a good side project to make, a simple tool to search through all HLCoders archives. Too much information is essentially lost in there.

One modder asked Valve if he could release his Xash3D based mod on Greenlight, they got a reply that said it wasn't fully legal: http://www.moddb.com/mods/half-life-subtitl
es-mod/news/sad-news-legal-issues-lack-of
-time


It's a bit vague because they don't specify exactly which parts are illegal, just that it's not the original engine. Perhaps if you ran Xash3D under GoldSource it would be legal (as PowerSource's MetaLoader does), we can't know that. If the people involved with Xash could prove that they didn't use leaked code it would probably clear things up, as would Valve doing something about it.

Quote:

EDIT: Also, Xash IMO is lego-work that crumbles if you touch it, I appreciate the effort that the developers put in, I just don't like the end-result.


I couldn't get HLE to run under it, seems that they use a different approach to loading mods. I'm probably just missing something simple though.

Quote:

Factoring in everything, today it sounds like this: Do what you want as long as you don't make money off it.


Quote:

I think that what´s the last thing in their priorities for people like Sookiller is to earn money with what they do with Gold Source. wink-wink - wink-wink - ;)


I sent an email last week where i told them if they didn't reply or gave vague replies i'd consider that to be a silent acknowledgement giving people permission to do whatever they want when it comes to reverse engineering.
I haven't received any replies.

So i guess we can do whatever we want without fear of repercussions, provided we don't make money off of it.

I did tell them about an exploit that lets you play any game for free using Sven Co-op as a base, it even lets you break the "prevent players from playing HL singleplayer alone" rule that they set for them.
It isn't an obvious exploit by any means, but if people figure it out, it would undercut their GoldSource profits, at least until the exploit is patched.
I'm not sure if that is even possible without making a mess of SC's Steam deployment though.

I'm going to wait a bit longer before i start reverse engineering stuff, right now i'm experimenting with a rebuild of the map compiler tools: https://github.com/SamVanheer/HLCompileTool
s


Just getting the basics up and running to see what that winds up as. A complete rebuild would take a lot of time, and there may be breaking changes in some areas (command line arguments, settings.txt) so i was going to ask for some feedback first to see what people thought of it.

I think we've cluttered this thread enough with off topic discussions though, can this be moved to its own thread?
22 Mar 17, 15:39
By Archie
avatar
My Empire of Dirt
Quote:
undercut their GoldSource profits

laughing - :lol:

These days the amount they make from Goldsource per year will probably be around what they make from CSGO in five minutes of in-game purchases.

At the end of the day, there's absolutely no motivation for Valve to care about any of this. They're loving and supportive of Goldsource modders, but why would they actively take steps to allow GS to stop being GS? All these Frankenstein's engines like Xash are just such a pointless endeavour. I get that it's fun to tinker with an old engine, but getting mad at Valve for not caring is daft.

If you want Source features, use Source - otherwise, you're better using an entirely open-source engine like Unity.
22 Mar 17, 16:51
By JeffMOD
avatar
Call 141.12
Quote:
These days the amount they make from Goldsource per year will probably be around what they make from CSGO in five minutes of in-game purchases.

Hell, the amount they make from goldsource per year is probably less than I spend weekly on lunches.
Pretty much everyone who wants Half-Life/CS 1.6 has it, and even back when the engine was high tech there weren't many people lining up to license it.

It doesn't really make business sense for Valve to care about goldsource. Besides, if recent interviews are to be believed, they're actually making a new engine anyway.
22 Mar 17, 17:31
By Crollo
avatar
Member
@Crypt Haven't forgotten about the threading topology comparison, I'm just really slow. Sorry!

Quite happily surprised that I am not only able to return to this after a week of not doing anything with it, but being motivated enough to continue working on it with no problem. Finished the midsection and I'm almost finished the bottom plate.



The midsection was easily the most difficult piece to finish due to it's complexity, and my inexperience with high-poly subd topology. Once the bottom plate is finished, I only have 5 small pieces left which are going to be a cakewalk (knock on wood) compared to the rest of the mod. This is by far the most detailed model I have ever created.
22 Mar 17, 18:50
By Solokiller
avatar
Member
Quote:

At the end of the day, there's absolutely no motivation for Valve to care about any of this. They're loving and supportive of Goldsource modders, but why would they actively take steps to allow GS to stop being GS? All these Frankenstein's engines like Xash are just such a pointless endeavour. I get that it's fun to tinker with an old engine, but getting mad at Valve for not caring is daft.

If you want Source features, use Source - otherwise, you're better using an entirely open-source engine like Unity.


If you were to switch to Unity (or any other engine, including Source) you'd lose the right to use Half-Life 1 content. Do you want to tell the Science and Industry team that they should just switch engines? They built on top of a lot of existing content that would suddenly be illegal to use.
Here's the opinion of their lead programmer:
https://github.com/ValveSoftware/halflife/i
ssues/1712#issuecomment-270819426

https://github.com/ValveSoftware/halflife/i
ssues/1712#issuecomment-272752203


You'd be forcing people to throw away nearly 2 decades worth of content just to get around engine limits that are trivially, pathetically easy to deal with when you have access. E.g. the maximum map size is basically just a few networking related function calls that can be made customizable.

Consider this: Valve required the SC team to prevent people from playing the Half-Life campaign alone, yet there are multiple ways to do just that, ranging from running a mod that loads the maps you can get from SteamCMD (and you can make your own mod easily enough) to using the exploit i've mentioned several times.
Said exploit can only be fixed by making changes to SC's Steam depots, and i've seen no changes there that would prevent the exploit from being used.

Similarly, i've pointed out many times that you can reverse engineer all of the engine's code easily using IDA. It's practically the same as releasing the source code, only it's not immediately usable. This is in direct contradiction of Gabe Newell's statements about not releasing it to prevent hackers and cheaters from abusing it.

There is nothing stopping people from breaking those rules and doing exactly what Valve wants to prevent from happening. If they won't act to fix exploits or stop people playing games for free, then we don't have to worry about legal action if we reverse engineer the engine.

If they do act when we do that, they'll be sending a very powerful message that contradicts their own statements in the recent AMA and interviews. So i don't think we'll be having to worry about anything.

I guess i'll start rebuilding the launcher this weekend then.
22 Mar 17, 19:01
By abbadon
avatar
Member
Quote:
If you want Source features, use Source - otherwise, you're better using an ?entirely open-source engine like Unity.


Wrong. Most of us don't care about fancy graphic bump and specular thingy, we want those stupid 1997 limits overriden, just that. smile - :)
22 Mar 17, 19:22
By Crollo
avatar
Member
Have to agree with Archie here...
I don't think it can really be worded any better than he put it, but to reinforce the point: If you want a different engine--Use a different engine. Outside of this forum, I have never heard of anybody so demanding of the goldsource engine's source code.

Now I'm not even close to being a competent programmer, but I don't need to be to understand the implications of trying to bring an ancient engine in the modern world. Newer engines are designed to take advantage of the countless advancements in the computer world that have been made since the late 90s, even if you don't use "advanced features" such as bump mapping and specular mapping. (Shaders aren't exactly "advanced" features by the way...)
With the amount of band-aiding you're going to be doing to the goldsource engine to keep up with that, you might as well just use the open-source quake engine instead, or even better, use a modern engine if you want modern features.

I think it's great that people can still be passionate about a great game, and more specifically it's engine, but there is a point that you have to push past the nostalgia and accept that obsolescence is in fact real.
22 Mar 17, 19:44
By abbadon
avatar
Member
Quote:
I think it's great that people can still be passionate about a great game, and more specifically it's engine, but there is a point that you have to push past the nostalgia and accept that obsolescence is in fact real.


Well. I think that it is not nostalgia, it is laziness. In my case, I don't want to spent more time learning HL2 coding, modelling (I think it is far different from HL1 because of physics, etc) and probably mapping wink-wink - ;) I did struggle with GS coding, so you can imagine what will happen with me tryng to understand HL2 source, hahaha!, Ridiculous Ties! - :walter:

And for Xash3D, we just need to develop mods under Xash3D publish them as to be used under GS but advising to use it under Xash3D or whatever engine. Advising to use something is not illegal... Headcrab Basher - :crowbar: Oh, wait!, could it be something like encouraging to use pirated software?, unless there's some legal notification or someone condemned... could a clone engine be recommended of being used?
22 Mar 17, 20:51
By Loulimi
avatar
Member
@Crollo
It always annoys me to hear people saying: you should move to another engine. Being told "you should accept that obsolescence" makes me feel like I'm consulting a psychologist. I don't need one (at least when it comes to my modding preferences, I guess I could use one for my odd exhibitionist disorder).
We know the age of the Goldsource engine and we're not sticking with it just because we're deliberately ignoring the reality unlike what you're saying. There are good reasons to stick with it, a good part has to do with personal preferences and also passion for the original game. But the Goldsource engine still remains relevant today for other reasons. It's got a distinct gameplay and graphical atmosphere, there is very extensive knowledge of the engine which has been accumulated and documented over the past 20 years, its modding experience is time-tested, and last and far from the least: it's got a huge legacy of content that would be unusable from another engine.
I'm not a Goldsource die-hard fan, but I don't think you should see people who stick and want to do more with the engine as closed-minded people who refuse to accept the reality.

@abbadon
I don't think laziness is a word that describes more than 10% of the Goldsource modders (<- percentage that is completely arbitrary, trust me!)

@Archie
Unity is closed-source, I believe.
22 Mar 17, 21:21
By rufee
avatar
Sledge fanboy
We are not against GS we are referring to the clone engines, they add very little benefit but segregate the already shrinking community.
As a mapper i can't justify the use any of these "3rd" party engines because they are not as widely adopted as the version currently on Steam. The look and feel of the engine is there, was there and will be there in the form of the original engine.
GS was not meant for elaborate entity setups or huge open worlds, why do you need to change that ?

Ive looked at Xash or was it SOHL or whichever with all these graphical improvements and a map on them looked horribly lacking polish (props, lighting etc...). The thing with GS is that you can get away with using just CSG for your map keeping the look and feel authentic. That's why many never moved to Source because the level of detail needed to make a decent level is way higher.

The only thing that keeps this engine from going under is nostalgia. Valve pulled the other reason when they released csgo.
22 Mar 17, 22:03
By abbadon
avatar
Member
Quote:
I don't think laziness is a word that describes more than 10% of the Goldsource modders


Haha, no, i was only describing myself!! wink-wink - ;)
22 Mar 17, 22:16
By Solokiller
avatar
Member
If you don't want to make maps that use newer features, you don't have to. If you want to play only mods that use the original engine that's your choice.
Why restrict people from doing what they want just because you don't feel like doing it yourself?
22 Mar 17, 22:59
By Loulimi
avatar
Member
I agree with that. I don't understand what's up with that willingness in imposing a lethargy to others.
Quote:
GS was not meant for elaborate entity setups or huge open worlds, why do you need to change that ?

We don't stick with GS for its lack of elaborate entity setups and huge open worlds, so why would we prevent it from getting these new features? (although, those two, especially open world, is far from being the reasons why we want to open-source the engine).

Also, I like the visual aspect of improved GS/Xash games like Paranoia 2 and Cof. Guess it depends on everyone's taste.

Quote:
The only thing that keeps this engine from going under is nostalgia. Valve pulled the other reason when they released csgo.

For the nostalgia part, I explained in my previous part why I think it's wrong. Also, I would argue there is currently more CS1.6 / CZ mappers than other GS mappers.
22 Mar 17, 22:59
By Loulimi
avatar
Member
I agree with that. I don't understand what's up with that willingness in imposing a lethargy to others.
Quote:
GS was not meant for elaborate entity setups or huge open worlds, why do you need to change that ?

We don't stick with GS for its lack of elaborate entity setups and huge open worlds, so why would we prevent it from getting these new features? (although, those two, especially open world, is far from being the reasons why we want to open-source the engine).

Also, I like the visual aspect of improved GS/Xash games like Paranoia 2 and Cof. Guess it depends on everyone's taste.

Quote:
The only thing that keeps this engine from going under is nostalgia. Valve pulled the other reason when they released csgo.

For the nostalgia part, I explained in my previous post why I think it's wrong. Also, I would argue there is currently more CS1.6 / CZ mappers than other GS mappers.
22 Mar 17, 23:09
By abbadon
avatar
Member
Plus, you have a problem moding for GS?, you have a zillion tutorials and threads on forums after 20 years of testing and fixing problems for modders. :p I am sure there are plenty less of that support for HL2 and Source modding. Maybe that's why there are so few total conversions for HL2, apart from map packs in the shape of a mod :/
23 Mar 17, 02:33
By Shepard62700FR
avatar
Member
I think I mentioned this already but I'll mention it again : some people prefer old engines (not specifically GS) because less technology means that there is less time to learn and master it. While modern engines open to the public try to be as friendly as possible (mentioning Unity and Unreal Engine 4), you still need a lot of time to learn them and master them. In other words, creating a level in DOOM 1 is much easier and faster than doing the same in Unreal Engine 4.

I would also like to make a note that is very dear to me when it comes "to fancy graphics inside Gold Source mods": please, don't mistake mods that features enhancements (ARRANGEMENT, Cry of Fear, PARANOIA, Trinity to quote the most populars) as engines (Gold Source, Xash) because they aren't. To clarify, these kind of stuff are built in the client binary (client.dll) by "querying and extending the existing", if it was done inside the engine, others binaries would have been touched ("hw.dll" for Steam, "xash.dll" for Xash) and it would have impacted all games running on that engine.

Switch to Source ? It seems that Valve also abandoned it as well. Just look at the Source SDK 2013 GitHub repository, same hell as the Half-Life 1 one.

I'm not a "pro-Gold Source" kind of person, I did mess around with Unity, Unreal Engine 3/4 and a little bit of Source too. But I refuse to throw away 10 (almost 15 for some people) years of hard work (ARRANGEMENT) just to migrate everything to Unreal Engine 4 and repeat the same history as Duke Nukem: Forever which is the "let's switch to this modern engine because it's so cool".

@Loulimi : Unity is closed source unless you buy the "Pro" or "Enterprise" license IIRC.
23 Mar 17, 05:49
By abbadon
avatar
Member
Amen.
23 Mar 17, 11:22
By Archie
avatar
My Empire of Dirt
Quote:
the Goldsource engine still remains relevant today for other reasons. It's got a distinct gameplay and graphical atmosphere

Which these mods remove. Nobody here is anti-goldsource, nor are we blind purists trying to ruin other people's fun. Just simply part of Goldsource's charm and its continued appeal is its simplicity and style.
Once you add refractive water and normal maps, etc, all of a sudden you've just got a horrible mismatch of style and it looks awful.

The argument is not against Goldsource.
23 Mar 17, 12:27
By Loulimi
avatar
Member
That's your opinion. Yet again, the Goldsource engine has got a very pleasant visual feel. That doesn't mean everything is perfect with it. The flashlight is horrible, so is the water and the low-quality textures. Yet I still like its simple visual layout. Blocks' edges are neatly, precisely, roughly (by that I'm trying to say that the scale is big) and brutally cut. There is no, or very few, smoothing effect. I cannot express all the reasons why I still like its visual appearance, that's just personal preferences and that's very hard to describe comprehensively.
You find it awful, I love the visual appearance of graphically-improved Goldsource mods such as Cof or PS2 (or Arrangment *winks at Shepard*), more so than Goldsource's original visual aspect. I still find Source graphics absolutely awful though.
The whole debate is about whether it is worth it to open-source the Goldsource engine in order to improve it (and also apparently whether people should tell other people what engine they think they should mod for). I take it you think it's not worth it. I'm convinced it is for a load of reasons, some I've already mentioned (bug fixing, optimisation, better modding experience), some I've not mentioned yet (custom menu, updated dependencies), and also for the reason of improving its visual appearance: making it look better while only sticking with what makes it look good, even compared to more modern engines. It would be easy to make new visual features only come as an option I believe.
I don't see the point of engines such as Xash which are buggy and illegal though.
23 Mar 17, 14:36
By Urby
avatar
Leaving for Andromeda
I'm all for people doing interesting things with the GoldSource engine, but I'm a sucker for the classic style and even the original Low-Def models.

I tend to follow most that have that classic look. I don't mean set in black mesa specifically. Original mods that favour brushwork prefabs over models. A prime example would be They Hunger

Somewhat ironic considering The Core uses a lot of prop models... tongue - :P
23 Mar 17, 15:39
By Solokiller
avatar
Member
Quote:

Once you add refractive water and normal maps, etc, all of a sudden you've just got a horrible mismatch of style and it looks awful.


Nobody's saying we should do that. For some reason, every time i talk about dealing with OpenGL performance issues people think i'm talking about refractions, reflections, bump mapping, HDR, etc, when all i mean is to eliminate the performance issues caused by immediate mode and poorly written graphics code.

Take a look at this:


This is rendering a map using shaders, yet it looks the same as in-game. That's because the shaders are identical to the immediate mode version.

A well designed implementation will have the capacity to have those fancy effects, but that is not what i intend, and i doubt anyone else would force it on others.
23 Mar 17, 15:56
By rufee
avatar
Sledge fanboy
I don't know about you, but if i uncap the framerate i get ~1,5-2k fps running trempler's or bruce's huge experimental maps. Where are these performance issues you speak of? grin - :D
Everything runs fine for me on w10. Granted not everyone has a top of the line i7 or a gtx1080, but i guarantee any 10 year old system can push a decent 400fps and if you are running that maybe its time for an upgrade? I get that there are some outdated methods used in the rendering pipeline, but it still works fine on most stuff. Unless its remade for convenience sake, but then we are back into the whole modifying thing...
23 Mar 17, 18:17
By Admer456
avatar
Member
Quote:
"but i guarantee any 10 year old system can push a decent 400fps"


My laptop is almost 10 years old, and I am confident that your statement does not apply on my end. tongue - :P
Even in 640x480!
23 Mar 17, 19:42
By Solokiller
avatar
Member
AMD users beg to differ. It's a driver issue, not an implementation issue, but you have to switch to shaders to bypass the problems.
23 Mar 17, 20:36
By rufee
avatar
Sledge fanboy
Never owned an AMD/ATI card so can't comment there. I have one at work though so i might test and see what i get compared to Nvidia.
23 Mar 17, 22:18
By Solokiller
avatar
Member
Don't forget to turn on the flashlight, that's a major cause of FPS drops.
23 Mar 17, 22:53
By abbadon
avatar
Member
I am sure that what many modders are asking for is to increase engine limits, just that, nothing about fancy graphics.

In my personal case I am just more than happy if the game don't crash because of the max edicts issue, or the max entities in visible packet list. Probably Xash has its issues, but with it my mod did never crash because of those problems.

I am ager to see what Solokiller will do now that, as I think I read, he will start to study how to improve the engine (if not, it will be like a bucket of ice thrown on we all modder's back!, hahaha Headcrab Basher - :crowbar: ).
<< ... 108 109 110 111 112 [113]

Forums > Maps and Mods

Login to Reply

You must be logged in to reply.